Time: Thu Mar 06 15:40:57 1997
by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA28688
for [address in tool bar]; Thu, 6 Mar 1997 12:00:38 -0700 (MST)
Delivered-To: liberty-and-justice-outgoing@majordomo.pobox.com
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 1997 13:42:51 -0800
To: "Virginia Cropsey" <Ginny@springfield.fe.com>
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: L&J: Burnett v. Commissioner
Cc: <liberty-and-justice@pobox.com>
Dear Ginny,
The original message which I received
concerning Burnett v. Commissioner was
forwarded from a colleague, who received it
originally from someone who made the
serious mistake of quoting the Plaintiff's
petition as the decision of the court.
When this fact started to surface, I went
to the trouble of purchasing a certified
copy of the entire docket file from the
Clerk of Court ($78.00). We are selling
bound copies for $25 ($12 for copying and
binding, $3 for priority mail, and $10 for
our handling fees).
I was at fault for taking the original message
on faith, so I am to blame for broadcasting
it without first checking it out. From now
on, I will not do so without first confirming
something so important. On this very same
issue, we do have Rep. Barbara Kennelly's
letter concerning the meaning of "State"
in the Internal Revenue Code; she relied on
expert legal advice from the Legislative Counsel,
and also the Congressional Research Service,
to write her letter. Unfortunately, her letter
is not quite the same as a court holding. See
"Congresswoman Suspected of Income Tax Evasion"
in the Supreme Law Library at URL:
http://www.supremelaw.com
for more background details on the Kennelly
letter.
I do apologize to everyone here if I caused any
convenience. That will surely be the last time
I broadcast something of that importance,
without first obtaining confirmation from
the court. Given the huge volume of inbound
email which I am now receiving, it is just
impossible to track down everything. That
is at once a strength, and a major weakness,
of the Internet. C'est la vie!
I still maintain that the Internal Revenue Code
is dead, for many reasons like Kennelly's letter.
Fortunately, we don't need to rely upon Burnett
v. Commissioner to start the funeral, because
there is so much proof now circulating, which
CAN be confirmed.
I hope this helps. Please feel free to forward
this letter to anyone who may be interested in
this critical issue.
In closing, I want you to know that we have
filed our Notice of Intent to Petition for
Leave to Institute Quo Warranto Proceedings
against the "IRS". This would be their last
chance to prove their "authority," if any.
We know the answer already. :)
/s/ Paul Mitchell
http://www.supremelaw.com
At 12:05 PM 3/6/97 -0600, you wrote:
>----- Begin Included Message -----
>Date: Thu Mar 6 11:27:27 1997
>From: "Virginia Cropsey" <Ginny@springfield.fe.com>
>To: Scott Bergeson <Scott.Bergeson@m.cc.utah.edu>
>Subject: Burnett Case
>Cc: tfs@adc.com (Tony F Sgarlatti), pnet@proliberty.com
>
>Sorry to be so long getting back on this - my mail went up and down
>so much during system work, I gave up on it for a while. Lost my L&J
>connect - but LiberNet put me on after months of that not working, so
>I guess I'll stay with that for awhile. Sure they miss me on L&J.
>
>Anyway, I'm still not sure of the status of Burnett. Paul Mitchell
>sent a post on another list that made the brief appear to be a
>stunning decision. An attorney friend checked WestLaw and found no
>record of the case, even in the unpublished section. Some on the Net
>say they called the Virgin Islands District Court and the court
>dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction in Nov. I've heard some
>contend there was favorable reasoning behind the dismissal. Mitchell
>solicited funds to order the opinion - so why haven't we heard
>anything out of him - he announced the case as the end of the income
>tax in the fifty states? I'd check with him.
>
>I showed the brief and note Mitchell posted to Irwin Schiff. He was
>afraid it was an attempt to pollute zero returns - making them
>frivilous by citing a case that didn't apply or was decided
>adversely - not that lawyers don't miscite cases all the time and
>nothing so punitive happens. They even win as long as other
>arguments they make are correct - like "no liability is imposed".
>There is no need to cite this Burnett when filing a zero return.
>
>I have come up with an issue regarding Schiff's zero returns. While
>courts have said a zero return is a return, if you file Schiff's
>paperwork along with it, you make the statement that you're not
>filing voluntarily. This may make the return frivilous according to
>jaded IRS (although I haven't heard the Service say specifically,
>but they have given many who filed zero returns frivilous penalties),
>and it may be the reason you can't get your money back - your
>statement isn't voluntary, so it can't be taken as valid. $500 may
>be worth it depending on your tax burden. Making the statement can
>also be used to deny the return is voluntary, so you can argue it
>can't come in if they come after you criminally.
>
>I still believe not filing is best
>if you're not trying to get money back. If you file, consider
>filing an "Affidavit of Exemption from Federal Income Tax". You can
>figure out what one of those would say from the title. Some states
>base exemption on federal exemption. Some people have trouble
>getting their employer to recognize their exempt status. Filing such
>an affidavit may clarify your position for the years stated in the
>affidavit. I'm not giving legal advice of course.
>
>Post this to L&J if you like - my e-mail went down just after I
>posted concerning Burnett, and I wanted people to know to be wary.
>
>Ginny Cropsey
>
>----- End Included Message -----
>
>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>Unsub info - send e-mail to majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com, with
>"unsubscribe liberty-and-justice" in the body (not the subject)
>Liberty-and-Justice list-owner is Mike Goldman <whig@pobox.com>
>
>
========================================================================
Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. : Counselor at Law, federal witness
email: [address in tool bar] : Eudora Pro 3.0.1 on Intel 586 CPU
web site: http://www.supremelaw.com : library & law school registration
ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best
Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone
Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this
========================================================================
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Unsub info - send e-mail to majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com, with
"unsubscribe liberty-and-justice" in the body (not the subject)
Liberty-and-Justice list-owner is Mike Goldman <whig@pobox.com>
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail